Re: “TV ads for private booze initiative confuse more than inform” (Peter Callaghan column, 10-18).
The Initiative 1183 ads show how one could blend vagueness and exaggeration in 30 seconds. I would even go as far as the ads making fun of the voter by bringing out a great point and overshadowing it with cheesy music and flashy cop lights.
Case in point, one “No on 1183” ad points out in big bold letters that “1 in 4 mini-marts sell to minors” and I-1183 will allow “almost 1,000 mini-marts” to sell hard alcohol. Other than completely exaggerating the numbers, the ad leaves enough vagueness to let the voter come to the conclusion that minors will have more access to hard alcohol.
I don’t quite understand why the opponents are pointing out that the Liquor Control Board isn’t doing its job effectively and at the same time asking voters to keep the LCB selling alcohol instead of utilizing the resources for more enforcement.
Is keeping the status quo of one in four mini-marts selling beer to minors the point of these ads? Cue flashy lights before questions are asked.
Another “No on 1183” ad has a small business owner talking about higher taxes. The ad plays for 30 seconds without using the word “liquor.” Do the opponents assume the viewer knows what they’re talking about?
Callaghan’s column hit the nail on the head. The ads confuse more than they inform.